Wednesday, January 18, 2012


Embarrassing moment: after seeing Stop SOPA a number of times I had to get educated. These old eyes of mine (song to old Isley Brother tune) read Stop Online Privacy Act. I further misread the explanation that SOPA was a group of people dedicated to stopping the Online Privacy Act. Get educated did I say? Bad enough that I thought it was about privacy, and the bill name is Stop Online Piracy Act, I had to comment on it ~ why would anyone want to stop a group dedicated to stopping online privacy, was my reasoning. Oy, vey.

If I had went straight to Thomas online, read the bill, rather than reading about SOPA on a trusted site, I would have been better informed. When my Facebook friends started posting opposition to SOPA, I did go to Thomas and read the bill. I do not get the opposition. Disabling crooks seems like a good thing to me.

I found article Q & A On Contested Internet anti-Piracy Bill. Hope the link remains active.

I am still not clear why people think the bill, if passed, would restrict freedom of speech. The Associated Press article published Jan. 18, 2012 states:  "Leahy responded that there is nothing in the legislation that would require websites, Internet service providers, search engines, ad networks, payment processors or others to monitor their networks. He said his bill protects third parties from liability that may arise from actions to comply with a court order."
 "Michael O'Leary, a senior vice president at the Motion Picture Association of America, a key supporter of the legislation, said his industry is built upon a vibrant First Amendment. "We would never support any legislation that would limit this fundamental American right," he said. Neither PIPA nor SOPA "implicate free expression but focus solely on illegal conduct, which is not free speech." ..."

Yesterday I posted a link to the act, pondering how many people read it. Today more of my Facebook friends are posting links to a petition protesting SOPA. I am not opposed to the bill. I did not find anything in the bill that restricts freedom of speech, nor put undue pressure on search engines and other websites.

Of course my link goes nowhere, seeing it was the result of a query (I guess). Anyone who wants to read it, go to Thomas and search for bill H.R.3261.

No comments: